As a concerned Catholic, I’ve been following the tag list for Catholic blogs on WordPress for several days, and there has been little to no mention of Cardinal McCarrick sex abuse scandal with seminarians and now potentially teenage boys. In fact, the only mention I can find are from Protestant sites attacking the Catholic Church, but let’s take a look at what they have to say in their condemnations since they do still carry the weight of truth:

“Sadly, the vocal or visible Catholic religious and laity alike seem “publicly to agree that victims should “just get over it,” and even fault survivors for not forgiving. They are conflating our need to forgive with their wish to avoid the topic. This extends the wounds in relationship, because these strong voices blur, like our bishops in the United States of that era, the critical distinction between forgiving and enabling, between predator and priest. I grieve the persistence of this confusion deeply, but my life in God is testimony enough to refute their falsehood.”

“but the Catholic Church should perhaps put as much effort as they apparently do warning people about Santa Muerte into not being a pedophile factory. The Catholic Church fully endorses the fucking of children by its leadership. Bold statement, I know, but if you routinely, as an institution, facilitate and cover up pedophilia, that to me is an endorsement of that kind of sick behavior. So pump your brakes, Catholic Church.

What is at stake with your silence fellow Catholic bloggers and trying to go about your day normally? Complicity!!! Enough is Enough! The Catholic Church is going to have a synod of World Meeting of Families which one of the leaders of this synod is U.S. Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who is a protege of Cardinal McCarrick–in fact, his style and Bishop Coat of Arms are styled after Cardinal McCarrick’s own.

Although there are several references to Scripture passages that appeal to love and acceptance, the Bible passages that identify homosexuality as a sin are noticeable by their absence.

All of the above is essentially a moot point because Roman Catholicism does not teach the genuine Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. But as a Vatican observer, it’s interesting to watch the liberal and conservative factions of the church jostling for advantage in this mounting controversy. Pope Francis has already overturned church dogma by lifting the ban on communion for remarried divorcees and by leaving the question of intercommunion with liberal Protestants up to each bishop. Will Francis also be able to overturn the church’s teaching on same-sex relationships and marriages or is the 81-year-old pontiff pragmatically preparing the way for his successor?”

Fellow Catholic bloggers the only way this gets resolved is if we Catholics do not let this get swept underneath the rug. You must say something, one might wonder if saying nothing will be committing the sin of omission. It is your duty to the virtue of justice, it is your duty to Jesus Christ.

In many Christian churches around the world, this last Sunday readings reflected what is commonly known as Trinity Sunday or the Feast of the Holy Trinity. As I’ve heard in several sermons by pastors or have read in other articles that it’s doctrine of Christianity many find difficult to express before others. A common analogy that I’ve read, although all analogies stretched to their ends fail, explains how three persons can be one God by using the sun that gives life to all of the earth. The source or the Father, which gives life, also provides light which illuminates the truth of our sinful natures like the light that reveals specks of dirt on a window and makes way the path of salvation—The Son. Finally, we have the Holy Spirit, which is said to be the love of the Father and the Son exemplified by the warmth of the sun felt on a cool spring or fall day.

Trinity Sunday, in many church calendars, falls after the Feast of Pentecost where, as promised by Christ before his ascension, has sent us this Advocate of Love that provides for us Christians the mode of Grace to be in a relationship with God. Of course, once we’ve experienced this friendship of God through grace, let us be reminded that the Lord calls us to action in the world in the Great Commission:

The eleven disciples went to Galilee,to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.When they all saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.Then Jesus approached and said to them,“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

What drives the opinions of President Obama and writer Adam Gopnik is the effect of the Enlightenment, Madden writes, “In a post-Enlightenment world, the concept of religious warfare is odious, largely because most people no longer believe one’s religious beliefs are relevant to one’s view of the world,”[1]—see, President Obama and Adam Gopnik. Madden goes on to explain that only after the event of 9/11 Westerners received a rude awakening that yes, in fact, “religion remains a reason to wage deadly war.”[2] However, Madden asserts that the reasons we wage war have changed very little since the Crusades, the secularist states have only replaced religion as a reason for war with loyalty to the state or political ideology.[3] Madden’s analysis is something that people like Adam Gopnik can never understand due to their bias loyalty to their political ideology. I would certainly surmise that Gopnik is even fanatical enough that it isn’t possible for him to understand that the Crusaders reasons for war and his reason for writing this piece are both rooted in the same metaphysics.

So unlike Gopnik, Madden reviews the bare bone facts of Christianity, the Crusades, and Islam. Madden asserts, “Unlike Islam, Christianity had no well-defined concept of holy war before the Middle Ages. Christ had no armies at his disposal, nor did his early followers. Only in AD 312, after the conversion to Christianity [of the Roman Empire], did the religion come into direct contact with statecraft and warfare.”[4] Christopher Tyerman gives a more in-depth description of the development of Christian Just War writing, “When Christianity became adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire in the early fourth century, Graeco-Roman just war confronted the Judaic traditions of war fought for faith and not merely temporal but divinely ordained rights…prompted the emergence of a set of limited principles of Christian just war.”[5]

Adam Gopnik’s interpretation of the ‘facts’ appears to be missing a vital understanding that folks in the past do not think in the same manner as people today. So to balance the ‘facts’ laid out by these two scholars are Christ was lowborn, most of his disciples were low born, and they had no access to warfare. Christianity developed a philosophy of just war when the Roman Empire incorporated Christianity officially into its empire. During this period, St. Augustine of Hippo developed the doctrine of Just War incorporating the practicality of time, Pax Romana, and Christian moral goodness.[6] In this manner, the foundation of Christianity is very different from Islam.

In 7th century A.D., Christianity finds its first true competitor when the Prophet Mohammad founded Islam. Madden explains that “the Prophet was both a political and religious leader, Islam was at once a faith and a means of government. Commerce, justice, diplomacy, and war were built into the bedrock of the religion…Mohammad waged war first against other Arab towns and then against Mecca itself.”[7] Traditional Islam is divided into two different concepts for the world, the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (Abode of War). Madden explains that the Abode of War does include the Christian world where Muslims “were enjoined to wage jihad against unbelievers.”[8] Tyerman explains that with the Abode of Islam, People of the Book (Christians, Jews, and others) “living in Muslim lands…religious tolerance was guaranteed by early Islamic texts (see, Sura 109)…the People of the Book had to recognize their subordinate status and pay a tax, the jizya. Despite the reaction of some modern sentimentalist, there was little generosity…by contrast…in the Dar al-harb…individuals were open to attack.”[9]

After the Prophet died in 632 A.D., the Muslim faith expanded greatly within a century by military conquest of Persia, Egypt, and Syria. As explained by Madden, around the same period, Muslim conquerors “swept through all of Christian North Africa also crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and established their rule in Spain.”[10] During the 8th century, Muslim forces were marching across the Pyrenees, into Gaul (what is now France), and wouldn’t be sent back to Spain until the Battle of Tour by Charles Martel. Although defeated, Muslims continued to harass Christians living in southern Gaul throughout the 8th century.[11] By the time of Pope Urban II’s declaration in 1095, ¾ of originally Christian lands had been conquered by Muslim caliphates. Madden’s thesis articulates that after 300 years and demands from the Byzantine Empire for aid, the Pope was called to launch a defense of Christendom.

It’s natural to ask, what was the motivation for Muslims to pursue this type of conquest and Christians to wage a counter attack? Tyerman attempts to articulate a ‘balanced’ history by not stressing that the idea of imperialism, but dismissing the religious motivation of a religious pilgrimage that is the basis of Madden’s thesis. In regards to Islam, “Thus on the Muslim community was enjoined jihad…this took two forms, the internal spiritual struggle, and the less, the military struggle against infidels…In theory, fighting was incumbent on all Muslims until the whole world had been subdued.”[12] Tyerman differs from Madden by articulating the drive for Christianity was “the opportunity they afforded for a revival of religious enthusiasm, devotion and piety, essentially concerns internal to the church and Christian society.”[13]

Madden’s thesis rest on a social and cultural history from a bottom-up perspective. He explains that an average crusader’s understanding of Pope Urban II’s call was not a call for a Holy War per say, but rather what was known to them as a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulcher. Madden stresses the point that “The distinction between holy war and pilgrimage was real. Crusaders usually referred to themselves as ‘pilgrims’ or ‘cross bearers, and “they took vows of fasting or abstention from sex or by special devotions to be performed during the course of the pilgrimage.”[14]

All in All, there is no disagreement with Adam Gopnik that the Crusades are complex; however, it’s appearing that modern scholarship is disagreeing with the tired old rhetoric that these wars were waged in the name of Christianity for the purpose of spreading imperialistic atrocities. It is certainly true as Tyerman and Madden both agree that Christians are guilty of committing atrocities throughout the period, but these actions are more due to the period than any foundation of Christian faith by looking at the facts with proper historicism. It must be stressed that these wars, a thought made popular by historians like Sir Steven Runciman, were not imperialistic in nature, but rather were due to religious motivations, as these people were intrinsically religious. Whether those motivations are more pious or Machiavellian in nature is still up for debate.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris